• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentegon set to release new cuts to Active Duty

DVSentinel

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
US military to unveil plan to cut personnel costs | Fox News

Extracted:


Published February 22, 2014
The Wall Street Journal
Facebook1601 Twitter447 Gplus20

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is set Monday to recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances to prune billions of dollars in benefits from the defense budget, setting up an election-year confrontation with veterans groups and lawmakers.

Faced with steadily increasing military personnel costs that threaten to overwhelm an ever-tighter budget, Mr. Hagel is also expected to include a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass—a gesture meant to show that the best-compensated leaders also will make sacrifices.

Pentagon officials describe the package of cuts, which will be part of the military's coming budget, as a modest and realistic attempt to save billions of dollars needed to protect other critical portions of U.S. defense spending.

The majority of service members are E-4 or Below (Distribution of Enlisted Ranks)

Here is the military enlisted pay charts for 2014 2014 Military Pay Chart

The military received a 1% increase for 2014 with food prices alone projected to go up 2.5% to 3.5% this year. These people risk their lives everyday for all of us and yet live at or near the poverty level and now some want to cut their pay and increase their costs even more.

If cutting this to the military is what is necessary to maintain the welfare state, then we need to reconsider or priorities, or the veterans/military should decide not to defend such a state.
 
Gotta love sequester....and unintended consequence.
 
I support cuts across the board. If I am to believe that more can be done with less in regard to welfare, how am I to feel otherwise in regard to the military?
 
I support cuts across the board. If I am to believe that more can be done with less in regard to welfare, how am I to feel otherwise in regard to the military?

Considering what the country gets from each of the two groups, pay and benefits for military and verterans should never be cut as long as a single dollar is spent on welfare.
 
Considering what the country gets from each of the two groups, pay and benefits for military and verterans should never be cut as long as a single dollar is spent on welfare.

Yeah, that kind of extremism is very useful.

:roll:


Like it doesn't belay an irrational perspective.
 
These people risk their lives everyday for all of us and yet live at or near the poverty level and now some want to cut their pay and increase their costs even more.
This is how false and stupid rumors get started.
 
US military to unveil plan to cut personnel costs | Fox News

Extracted:


Published February 22, 2014
The Wall Street Journal
Facebook1601 Twitter447 Gplus20

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is set Monday to recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances to prune billions of dollars in benefits from the defense budget, setting up an election-year confrontation with veterans groups and lawmakers.

Faced with steadily increasing military personnel costs that threaten to overwhelm an ever-tighter budget, Mr. Hagel is also expected to include a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass—a gesture meant to show that the best-compensated leaders also will make sacrifices.

Pentagon officials describe the package of cuts, which will be part of the military's coming budget, as a modest and realistic attempt to save billions of dollars needed to protect other critical portions of U.S. defense spending.

The majority of service members are E-4 or Below (Distribution of Enlisted Ranks)

Here is the military enlisted pay charts for 2014 2014 Military Pay Chart

The military received a 1% increase for 2014 with food prices alone projected to go up 2.5% to 3.5% this year. These people risk their lives everyday for all of us and yet live at or near the poverty level and now some want to cut their pay and increase their costs even more.

If cutting this to the military is what is necessary to maintain the welfare state, then we need to reconsider or priorities, or the veterans/military should decide not to defend such a state.

What is left unmentioned is the billions spent for toys that at times the JCS, the military has told congress that it doesn't need, don't want and can't use. The problem is congress doesn't look at the military as an organization of national defense and give them what the military needs to accomplish that mission. Which by the way is more troops, not less. Congress and the administration looks upon the military as a civilian jobs producers and sustainer. They look at civilian jobs back home in their districts and states instead of military readiness.

It is more important to keep those jobs in their districts and states making stuff the military doesn't need or want than to maintain the readiness of the military.
 
What is left unmentioned is the billions spent for toys that at times the JCS, the military has told congress that it doesn't need, don't want and can't use. The problem is congress doesn't look at the military as an organization of national defense and give them what the military needs to accomplish that mission. Which by the way is more troops, not less. Congress and the administration looks upon the military as a civilian jobs producers and sustainer. They look at civilian jobs back home in their districts and states instead of military readiness.

It is more important to keep those jobs in their districts and states making stuff the military doesn't need or want than to maintain the readiness of the military.

That is most likely what he meant by "critical portions of U.S. defense spending."

Apparently he doesn't understand what Patton said "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory."
 
That is most likely what he meant by "critical portions of U.S. defense spending."

Apparently he doesn't understand what Patton said "Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the victory."

Exactly,
 
What is left unmentioned is the billions spent for toys that at times the JCS, the military has told congress that it doesn't need, don't want and can't use. The problem is congress doesn't look at the military as an organization of national defense and give them what the military needs to accomplish that mission. Which by the way is more troops, not less. Congress and the administration looks upon the military as a civilian jobs producers and sustainer. They look at civilian jobs back home in their districts and states instead of military readiness.

It is more important to keep those jobs in their districts and states making stuff the military doesn't need or want than to maintain the readiness of the military.

But, you see, the manufacturers of those military machines that we don't really need contribute to campaigns and fund lobbyists. The soldiers fighting our wars don't.
 
Really? Who knew? /smh

I wasn't sure if you knew that, But from a Republican stand point it makes sense. The troops do not give the Republicans near as much money as the defense contractors do so they are just protecting their back accounts. The wars are winding down so the troops get moved to the back of the bus.
 
shrug...

These cut are typical and unsurprising. When liberals are in control, the soldier gets the ax.
 
We had Re-dux under Reagan, E-4's and below are mostly looking to serve their initial contract anyway. You can enlist people quickly, but you can't always get gear to them quickly.
 
But, you see, the manufacturers of those military machines that we don't really need contribute to campaigns and fund lobbyists. The soldiers fighting our wars don't.

You my friend have hit the nail on the head. The campaign cash from lobbyist and those corporations of the military industrial complex are heard loud and clear. the soldier in the field, not at all.
 
And we know who to blame for this.

Why does anyone need to be blamed? It's not a problem. With a "defence" budget 6 times the nearest competitor, I think we can defend ourselves just fine. Now then if your looking for more aggression, imperialism and interference in sovereign countries who's only threat might be to international corporations bottom line, then yeah, you may have trouble, but very little.
 
It is shameful that our military, especially enlisted ranks are paid what they are paid today...
 
Cut the military to a defensive force, not a menacing force, and the personnel can be paid well.
 
Cut the military to a defensive force, not a menacing force, and the personnel can be paid well.

I read before that even with the wars, America's largest military role was aid around the world....Are you advocating doing away with that as well?
 
If cutting this to the military is what is necessary to maintain the welfare state, then we need to reconsider or priorities, or the veterans/military should decide not to defend such a state.

To be perfectly honest we should not have the military size that we do. In fact the only time that we are suppose to have a standing army is during times of war. The only exception being the Navy, and due to the tie in the air force. So, lets get out of the pointless wars we are currently in and let our service members go home. If we kept our noses out of other countries affairs then we wouldn't need to spend at the least 6 times the amount on military expidentures than any other country in the entire world. We also would not have near as many service members needing medical attention for the rest of their lives via physical injuries and PTSD.

wiki ~ List of countries by military expenditures
 
Back
Top Bottom